Joined
·
40 Posts
Let me start by saying that I'm older and played casuals (weddings, dances, lounges, etc.) when I was young (HS and college). To the limited degree that I improvised, it was melody-based. Not that I ignored the chords, but mostly I tried to build melodies around the written melody and in harmony with the chords I heard.
I'm back to playing and have been reading through a Real Book recently. It seems that there are many standards - or standard-like tunes, which have a melody that - to my ears - has some substance/development/etc.
Then there are tunes, some of which are written by guys/gals who I know are great players, which seem to lack melodic completeness.
I guess that many are just heads designed as a reference for the changes, but I guess that I just don't get it - at least yet.
I can understand that some players can improvise through changes with no thought of the melody that was written. In fact, I sometimes find that, at least with ballads, if I don't know the melody at all, and if the changes seem beautiful, it gives me some freedom to play without worrying about the standard melody.
That said, I look/listen to some of these brief tunes and think that they seem like nothing more than "cover" for a set of changes.
Before the onslaught starts, I understand that the shortcoming IS likely mine. I've only recently even be exposed ideas like playing this scale against that chord. I always thought that the idea was to play lines that were pretty or interesting and just fit in because they sounded good. My problem, I know, and probably why I can play ballads with some success, but can't begin to know what to do when someone counts off Oleo at 300.
I'm wondering what others think feel about this distinction between (at the extremes) standard-type songs and brief melodies that seem to have no development or "completeness".
Don't get me wrong, I'm often dazzled by the playing of players who can do interesting and exciting things for an extended period of time with pretty much nothing but a set of changes to guide them, but I still miss the reference to a well developed melody when it seems to not be there.
I wonder what others think about this. Do those of you who can improvise over changes with little concern about the written melody find that to be "just fine," or does the lack of a well-developed melody seem a genuine shortcoming?
Or is my view of what constitutes a good melody unnecessarily restrictive?
OK - have at it.
I'm back to playing and have been reading through a Real Book recently. It seems that there are many standards - or standard-like tunes, which have a melody that - to my ears - has some substance/development/etc.
Then there are tunes, some of which are written by guys/gals who I know are great players, which seem to lack melodic completeness.
I guess that many are just heads designed as a reference for the changes, but I guess that I just don't get it - at least yet.
I can understand that some players can improvise through changes with no thought of the melody that was written. In fact, I sometimes find that, at least with ballads, if I don't know the melody at all, and if the changes seem beautiful, it gives me some freedom to play without worrying about the standard melody.
That said, I look/listen to some of these brief tunes and think that they seem like nothing more than "cover" for a set of changes.
Before the onslaught starts, I understand that the shortcoming IS likely mine. I've only recently even be exposed ideas like playing this scale against that chord. I always thought that the idea was to play lines that were pretty or interesting and just fit in because they sounded good. My problem, I know, and probably why I can play ballads with some success, but can't begin to know what to do when someone counts off Oleo at 300.
I'm wondering what others think feel about this distinction between (at the extremes) standard-type songs and brief melodies that seem to have no development or "completeness".
Don't get me wrong, I'm often dazzled by the playing of players who can do interesting and exciting things for an extended period of time with pretty much nothing but a set of changes to guide them, but I still miss the reference to a well developed melody when it seems to not be there.
I wonder what others think about this. Do those of you who can improvise over changes with little concern about the written melody find that to be "just fine," or does the lack of a well-developed melody seem a genuine shortcoming?
Or is my view of what constitutes a good melody unnecessarily restrictive?
OK - have at it.